"PROTECTING NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES"

House Foreign Affairs Committee

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROBERTA COHEN, CO-CHAIR EMERITUS, COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN NORTH KOREA (HRNK) ON “PROTECTING NORTH KOREAN REFUGEES” AT THE HEARING OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, DECEMBER 12, 2017

My appreciation to Congressman Christopher Smith and Ranking
Member Karen Bass for holding this hearing to maintain a spotlight on North
Korean refugees and their need for international protection. The world
community’s preoccupation with massive movements of people fleeing war-torn
countries has often overlooked the plight of smaller groups of refugees in desperate
straits. The North Korean case is one such situation that should warrant
international attention because of the extraordinary cruelty to which the asylum
seekers and refugees are subjected. Unlike most governments, North Korea has
made it a criminal offense to leave its country without permission, thereby preventing
its citizens from exercising their internationally recognized right to seek
asylum and become a refugee. Second, those who do try to escape face increasing
obstacles -- electrified fences, enhanced border patrols, exorbitant bribes, and
traffickers. Only 1,418 managed to reach South Korea in 2016. Third, if caught
and returned, North Korean refugees are subject to systematic and brutal punishment,
which the United Nations Commission of Inquiry (COI) has found to constitute crimes
against humanity.[1]Fourth, neighboring China collaborates
with the DPRK in arresting and turning back North Koreans despite the abusive
treatment they routinely suffer at the hands of North Korea’s security forces.[2]

In his 2017 report to the UN General Assembly, the Special
Rapporteur on human rights in the DPRK, Tomas Ojea Quintana, drew attention to the
“deplorable conditions” in the holding centers near the border with China where
repatriated North Koreans are confined before being sent off to reeducation or
other camps for extended punishment. Women constitute the majority of those who
flee and of those returned and are “the target of violent practices.”[3]
During interrogation and detention, they are subject to beatings, torture, and sexual
and gender-based violence. Those found to be pregnant are reported to have
their pregnancy terminated by force, but “the shame and secrecy attached to
this practice make precise statistics on cases of forced abortion difficult to
collect.”[4]
When placed in reeducation through labor camps and other prison facilities, forcibly
repatriated North Koreans are deliberately denied adequate food and medical attention,
and are subject to forced labor and sexually abusive treatment.

To North Korea, those who leave without permission are criminal
offenders, even traitors to the Kim regime. To United Nations human rights
bodies, North Koreans who leave illegally are potential refugees. They flee
persecution as well as the socioeconomic deprivation emanating from the songbun system of social and political
classification to which the government subjects them. But even if they were not
refugees when they left North Korea, they become so (that is, refugees sur place) because of the
well-founded fear of persecution and punishment they face upon return. The UN
Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 2017 called
on North Korea to decriminalize illegal border crossing, and because of the
high number of women forcibly repatriated, to ensure that the women “are not subjected to invasive body
searches, sexual violence and forced abortions, and that their rights to life
and to a fair trial are respected.”[5]
It further called upon North Korea to allow international organizations “access
to all women’s detention facilities.”[6]

UN bodies have also sent warnings to China, which the UN COI
found to be enabling North Korea’s crimes. A letter signed by COI Chair,
Justice Michael Kirby, and appended to its 400-page report, warned Chinese
officials that they could be found to be “aiding and abetting crimes against
humanity” by sharing information with North Korea’s security bodies and turning
back North Koreans to conditions of danger.[7]
It challenged China’s claims that North Koreans entering China illegally are
economic migrants who must be deported, and that those returned are not subject
to punishment.

On occasion China has allowed North Koreans to proceed to
South Korea, but these cases are few and far between.[8]
Over the years China has tolerated thousands of North Koreans residing
illegally in its country, some ‘married’ to Chinese men, but the North Koreans
have no rights, are vulnerable to exploitation and bribes, constantly fear
deportation and may be expelled. The UN Committee against Torture (CAT) in 2016
described China as practicing a “rigorous policy of forcibly repatriating all
nationals of the DPRK” on the grounds that they cross the border illegally for
economic reasons.[9] It called on
China to set up a refugee determination process for North Koreans and allow UNHCR
access to border areas. The CAT noted that it had 100 testimonies showing that
North Koreans forcibly returned were “systematically” subjected to torture and
ill-treatment and recommended UNHCR monitoring of North Koreans forcibly
returned to assure that they are not subject to torture.

When UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres visited China in
2006 as UN High Commissioner for Refugees, he told Chinese officials that
forcibly repatriating North Koreans without any determination process and where
they could be persecuted on return stands in violation of the Refugee
Convention. UNHCR also proposed a special humanitarian status for North Koreans
to enable them to obtain temporary documentation, access to services and
protection from forced return. To the refugee agency, North Koreans are deemed “persons
of concern,” meriting humanitarian protection.

To date, there has been little progress in persuading North
Korea or China to cooperate with the international community. Nonetheless,
China’s more critical stance toward North Korea of late as well as reports of its
making refugee contingency plans in the event of a crisis in North Korea,[10]
might lead to more open discussions, the relaxing of some of its policies and
the possible modification of others.

The following recommendations are offered with a view to promoting
protection for North Korean refugees.

RECOMMENDATIONS

First, an overall
international strategy is needed for dealing with the refugee issue. To this
end, the United States should propose a multilateral
approach to the North Korean refugee situation. Just as international
burden sharing has been introduced for other refugee populations, so should it
be developed here. The North Korean refugee situation is not an economic
migrant question for China and North Korea to decide alone according to their own
agreements. Other countries are profoundly affected, in particular South Korea whose
Constitution offers citizenship to North Koreans and already houses more than
31,000 North Koreans who have fled over the past two decades. Countries in East,
Southeast and Central Asia, East and West Europe, and North America have
admitted thousands upon thousands, of North Korean refugees. Working together with
UNHCR, a multilateral approach could be designed based on principles of non-refoulement and human rights
protection. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who has extensive experience
with this and other refugee situations, should be asked to initiate the process.

Second, the United
States, South Korea and allied governments should make China’s treatment of
North Korean refugees a high priority in their bilateral dialogues with China. They should make known their willingness
to admit North Koreans who cross the border without permission and should call
on China to allow UNHCR to begin a determination process so that North Koreans could
apply for refugee status and remain temporarily in China while their requests
are being processed. The United States and its allies should remind China that
more than 150 governments in the General Assembly have called upon China as a
country neighboring North Korea to cease the deportation of North Koreans
because of the terrible mistreatment they endure upon return. Chinese officials
should be encouraged to build on the instances where China has allowed North
Koreans to leave for the South, increase such cases and introduce a moratorium on
forced repatriations on humanitarian grounds to remain in effect until such
time as North Korea ceases its persecution and punishment of those repatriated.
A new approach would enhance China’s international standing, encourage other
states in Asia to uphold international norms, and exert influence on North
Korea to modify its practices. China for its part will need to be assured that
the United States and other countries are not seeking to forcibly reunify
Korea, destabilize the North and expand United States influence. Certainly, the
most effective way to reduce the number of North Koreans going into China is
not for the Chinese and North Koreans to push back North Koreans but for the
DPRK to begin to provide for the well-being and security of its population.

Third, the United
States should expand its practice of identifying and sanctioning North Korean as
well as Chinese officials and offices involved in forced repatriations and make
them aware that they could be held accountable in future trials.[11]
Special Rapporteur Ojea Quintana recently observed that “The more the
international community has insisted on the necessity to seek justice…, the more
the [North Korean] authorities have seemingly opened to a conversation
with human rights mechanisms on ways to fulfil their obligations...”[12]
In response to North Koreans’ fear of accountability, he described reports,
albeit unconfirmed, of improved practices in detention facilities, including
toward pregnant women.[13]
North Korea also responded for the first time to a United Nations human rights inquiry
about returned refugees by providing some statistics. It claimed that only 33
North Korean women out of 6,452 returned from 2005 to 2016 had been punished.[14]
This small number of course contradicted the findings of many UN-commissioned
reports that spoke of the routine punishment of tens of thousands returned. But
North Korea’s engagement in the conversation shows that international demarches
have had some effect. It is important therefore for the United States to strongly
support the collection of evidence about forcibly returned North Koreans and
make sure that the Seoul office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR), which is tasked with documenting information with a view to
accountability, has sufficient resources and staff to perform its functions
effectively. In particular, the United States should contribute to the hiring
of international criminal justice experts to review existing evidence,
including on forced repatriations, and to promote the effective working of a central
information and evidence repository to be set up in 2018 to facilitate future
prosecutions. It should contribute the names and information it has collected
to the central repository.

Fourth, the United
States should call on the international humanitarian organizations it funds to
request, when appropriate, international access to detention facilities and
reeducation camps that house political prisoners, among these, significant
numbers of forcibly repatriated women. Such an opportunity arose in September
2016 when a typhoon struck the northeast and flooded not only schools, clinics,
roads and agricultural lands, but also a reeducation through labor camp, Kyo-hwa-so Number 12, housing some 5,000
prisoners, including up to 1,000 forcibly repatriated women.[15]
HRNK provided the UN with satellite imagery of the flooded camp, which the
Secretary-General included in his report to the General Assembly,[16]but the humanitarian agencies did not
try to help the persons inside. It appeared they were reluctant to antagonize North
Korean officials and possibly undermine humanitarian operations for other flood
victims, despite the fact that information was available to them showing that
the women and other prisoners in the camp were given starvation rations, lacked
medical care and were subject to exploitation and forced labor.[17]
The humanitarian organizations, it should be noted, had some leverage in this
case because North Korea had requested the aid and had to listen to their
views. While North Korea could have turned down the request, at least the
question of entering a flooded camp and reaching its vulnerable people would
have been on the table as a legitimate ‘ask’ to be revisited in future.

It is important that the United States make known to the
World Food Program, UNICEF and other humanitarian agencies that they must stand
up for all people at risk, not just
those North Korea might choose to assist, and use the leverage they have to
generate meaningful dialogue on the human rights principles central to
humanitarian work. Failure to do so will condone the Kim regime’s persecution
and marginalization of the people it considers disloyal, contrary to the principles
upon which humanitarian organizations are founded. Building upon General
Assembly resolutions that call on North Korea to grant unimpeded humanitarian
access to all affected persons, including those in detention facilities and
prisons,[18]
the United States should reinforce the recent call made by the UN Special
Rapporteur to humanitarian agencies: he said they should “ensure” that their
programs benefit “vulnerable groups, including those who are in detention
facilities, prison camps and political prison camps.”[19]
It is also time for the United States to urge Secretary-General Guterres to apply
to North Korea the UN policy of 2013 which he endorsed – namely the Human
Rights up Front (HRuF) approach, which calls upon the entire UN system to come
together in the face of serious human rights violations and take steps on behalf
of the victims.

Fifth, the United
States should develop contingency plans with China for addressing a crisis in the
north that also encompasses protection and assistance for refugees and
internally displaced persons (IDPs). Significant numbers of North Koreans can
be expected to flee to China and South Korea in the event of an emergency, and
even more become internally displaced, making it desirable for the United
States and South Korea to develop plans with China for managing migration.[20]
China is already reported to be constructing refugee camps along its border
areas with North Korea.[21]
An agreement among the three under United Nations auspices should aim at stabilization
of the peninsula, provision of material aid, protection of displaced persons, and
incentives and opportunities to build and transform the country in accordance
with international human rights, humanitarian and refugee standards and humane
treatment of displaced persons.

Finally, the
United States should revisit any restrictions now placed on the admission of North
Korean refugees that could conflict with the spirit and intent of the North
Korean Human Rights Act (2004). Our government should make known its readiness,
given the persecution and punishment to which North Koreans are subject, to
increase the number of North Korean refugees admitted to this country. In FY 2017,
only 12 were reported to be admitted, contributing to a total of 212 since 2006.
While the vast majority of North Koreans will choose to seek refuge in South
Korea, some have reasons for seeking to resettle in the United States, and
should not be discouraged. As Victor Cha and Robert Gallucci have recommended the
United States should “seek public and private sector funding” for “educational scholarships
and vocational training,”[22] in
particular from the Korean American community, to empower the North Koreans
already admitted to this country and help them overcome the traumas they
experienced in fleeing one of the most tyrannical governments on the planet.

[1] UN General Assembly, Report of the commission of
inquiry on human rights in the DPRK, A/HRC/25/63, 7 February 2014, paras.
42,76, 89(m) [henceforth COI report].

[10] See Jane Perlez, “China Girds for North Korean
Refugees,” New York Times, December
12, 2017; and David E. Sanger, “Tillerson Speaks on a Largely Secret North
Korea Contingency Plan,” New York Times,
December 18, 2017.

[11] In October 2017, the Department of the Treasury
announced sanctions on seven North Korean individuals and three entities for
hunting down of asylum seekers abroad and other abuses. See “U.S. Sanctions
North Koreans for ‘Flagrant’ Rights Abuse, Reuters, October 26, 2017.

[14] North Korea told this to the UN Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 2017. See Elizabeth
Shim, “North Korea: Repatriated women defectors are not punished,” UPI, August
4, 2017.

[20] See Roberta Cohen, “Human Rights and Humanitarian
Planning for Crisis in North Korea,” International
Journal of Korean Studies, Fall/Winter 2015, pp. 11-16.

[21] See Jane Perlez, “China Girds for North Korean
Refugees,” New York Times, December
12, 2017; and “Report: China’s Military Prepared for Collapse Scenario,” Daily NK, May 5, 2014.

[22]See Victor
Cha and Robert L. Gallucci, Toward a New
Policy and Strategy for North Korea, George W. Bush Institute, 2016, p. 8;
and Education and Employment Among
U.S.-Based North Koreans: Challenges and Opportunities, George W. Bush
Institute, 2016.

HRNK on Facebook

Blog Archive

The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea

1001 Connecticut Avenue Northwest, Suite 435

Washington, DC 20036

Tel: (202) 499-7970

Fax: (202) 758-2348

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors' and not those of any other person, organization, or entity; they are the authors' alone. Specifically, they do not represent the views of the Board of Directors of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK) nor necessarily reflect the official policy or position of HRNK.